Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinion should not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 20314 Su m m ar y Cal endar

RE BE CC A VLAS EK P l a i n tiff-A p p ell a n t v. W A L -M A R T S T O R E S , IN C ., AD e la w a r e C o r p o r a tio n ; S A M ’ S E A S T , IN C ., A D e l awar e Cor po r at i o n D efen da n t s- A pp el l ees

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f ort he Sout her n D i st r i c tof Texas Low erD oc ketN um ber4: 08- C V

- 3362

B ef ore . JO L LY , W IE N E R , an d E L R O D , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l an tR ebecca V l asek i s h ere ap pea l i n g t h e di sm i ssalof her second em pl oym en tdi scr i m i n ati on act i on againsther f orm er em pl oyers, D efen da n ts-A pp el l ees, t h i s one groun dedpri m ari l y i n al l egati on s of di sc r i m i na t i o n o n t heb a s i s o f s e x , whi c h s heh a dfa i l e dt o a l l e g e i n he ri nit i al act i on an d w as un successf u l i n h er ef

f ort s t o am en d h er c om pl ai n ti n t h at f i rst United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D October 28, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 09- 20314

2 act i on t o i n cl u de su ch cha rges. Th e di st ri ctcourtdi sm i ssed t h e i n st an tsex di scr i m i n ati on act i on a s ba rred b y res j u di cat a or cl ai m p reclu si on a s a r esul tof t he di sm i ssal of

V l as ek’ s i ni t i alc om pl ai nt
. Vl as ek had notappeal ed that j udg m e nt , e l e c t i ng i ns t e adt o f i l e ane w co m pl ai nt , t he di s m i s s alo f w hi c h i s t he
s u bje c t o f th e in s ta n t a p p e a l. The pa r t i e s ha ver e pres en t e d t o us t hatt he i s s ue s a r e pur e l y l e ga la nd th a t o r a l a r g u m e n t is n o t n e c e s s a r y , s o w e s h a ll d is p o s e o f th is o n e o n th e b a s is
o f t he r e c o r d o n a ppe al , i nc l udi ng t he b r i e fs o f t he pa r t i e s a nd the M e m o r and um andO pi ni o ns o f

t he di s t r i c t c o ur t i n bo t h o f Vl as e k’ s c as e s , albe i t o nly t he s e c o nd i s b e f o r e u s n o w. O u r rev i ew of th ese da ta a n d t h e ap p l i ca b l e law satisf i es u s th a t, i r r es pec t ive of any und er l yi ng m er i t s or sy m pat het i c equi t i es t hat m i gh t have b ee n pr ese n tedbythe m e r i ts of th e claim s th a t V l a sek h a s tw i ce so u gh t t o litig a te , th e d is m is s a l o f a ll h e rcla im s o n b o th o c c a s io n s w e r e in e s c a p a b ly
m a n d a te db yt h e la w a p p lic a b le t o t h e irt im in ga n dfilin g s , m a k in gin e s c a p a b le th e co n c lu s io n th a t t h e ju d g m e n t o f th e d i s t r i c t c o u r t h e r e a p p e a le dis i m m i ne nt l y c o r r e c tf o r t he r e as o ns pa i ns t ak i ngly e xp l ai ne d i n it s M e m o r and um an dOp i n i o n o f

Ap r i l1 4 , 2 0 0 9
. Ac c o r d i n g l y , f o re s s e n t i a l l yt h e s a m e r e as o ns t h u s l ai d ou tby the di st ri ctcourt , t h e j u dg m en there ap pea l ed i s, i n al lres pects , AF F I RMED.